Printable View
What do people see as an all time great fighter? How can you decide one from another? Does an all time great have to be somewhere in the top 30, 50 or 100 P4P of all time rankings? There has been a lot of discussion recently saying whether guys like Froch, Cotto and Martinez are all time greats, they are certainly future hall of famers but do they make fighters all time greats lists?
To be an ATG you need to beat at least another HOF fighter, be in a great top level fight, showing great heart, consistent champion over a period of time.
Everything that Master said plus you have to be a consistent winner, but you don't have to be undefeated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
You should have a lengthy career and have fought at a consistent high level for the majority of your career.
You have to have been a champion and more than once helps, as does being a champion in a different division or divisions.
Most important, in my opinion, is you have to be seen as fighting and beating the top/best fighters in your division or divisions consistently.
I know a lot of us have individual criteria for what an ATG should or should not be and I'd like to hear them.
What about the fighters you are certain would have been ATGs but their careers were cut short for one reason or another?
YOu dont have to be undefeated but I think there should be a win % . If you have 10 losses you probably cannot be an ATG, unless you have 140 wins. But if you are 57-10, there is NO WAY you can be an ATG. I think it goes first and foremost by losses. Marciano was an ATG. Foreman with only 4 losses in 70 fights---ATG. Joe Louis with only 2 losses---ATG. Ali only 5 losses----ATG. Frazier only 5 losses----ATG. Larry Holmes---ATG all the way---only a few losses---18 straight title defenses. No doubt about Larry. Mike Tyson???----not sure. Not sure about Tyson.
An ATG is NOT a Buster Douglas who has 1 night of pure glory and then fades from all stardom. Leon Spinks is NOT, even though he beat the great Ali. Gene Tunney 's only claims to fame are his 2 wins over Dempsey. Tunney cannot be an ATG.
Number of losses, longevity, title defenses. That is it for me.
Is Fritzie Zivic an atg iyo? How about Carpentier?Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
Btw Tunney beat Harry Greb 4 times. Jack would not even fight the guy.
being popular with the fans seems to be the biggest thing these days......
Historical accomplishments, more than anything else, qualify someone as an ATG. Sugar Ray Robinson beating numerous HOF fighters, being the greatest welter ever, and winning lineal MW titles multiple times. Henry Armstrong holding 3 of 8 available world championships at the same time and beating HOF fighters while doing it. Ray Leonard winning super fight after super fight and overcoming the odds to beat Hagler (although I feel ray lost that one). Joe Louis defending his title 23 times and cleaning out the division. Ali being the first to win the HW championship 3 times, overcome the odds to beat foreman, engage in the fight of the century and thrills in Manila, and beat the best heavyweights over 3 generations of the Holden era of heavies.
Good Thread in light of all the recent talk. IMO , to be an ATG, the 1st requirement is to be the best in your Division for a decent period of time, or to have beaten someone who is the the best in the division and then continued to show that form . It's a phrase that's banded around all too often nowadays and I don't necessarily see a correlation between HOF and ATG. The only other alternative is for unique achievement that defies belief.
I reckon an ATG should apply to very few , simply because we are talking about being one of the best of all time, not just the era they boxed in.
I honestly think that it applies to probably less than 5 current boxers.
if you pressed me for names , I would probably only say Mayweather and Pacman for their achievements, and Maybe Hopkins more for his unique Longevity and being a World Champ at 50 and not necessarily for his boxing prowess.
I think it's a fine balance between in ring and accomplishment.
1) In ring ability - what did the fighter bring to the table? Were his skills elite-level? Skill/intelligence/physical attributes/ect. What did he do great? What was he not so good at? How did his skills/physical attributes/intelligence stack up with that of other established ATGs?
2) Accomplishment - Was the fighter ever THE guy in his division? How long? Was he ever THE guy in the sport of boxing? For how long? Did he fight a reasonable amount of top quality, top ranked opposition?
These are very subjective obviously, and of course allow human bias to skew them to make a fighter look good or shitty (depending on the bias).
For instance, take Marciano. A lot of people generally say his quality of opposition wasn't as great as other HW champs, that he fought in a weak division. There may be some validity to that, but he is undoubtedly an ATG because he was THE guy in the HW division for several years and fought the top guys of the time. Then there are people who take it the other way, and say "well 49-0 he retired undefeated so that means he's the greatest HW ever". So it's a fine balance.
What do you mean by "not for Hopkin's boxing prowess"? Like him or not, he's one of the greatest talents to ever enter the ring with one of the highest boxing IQ's of all time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
Mayweather, Pacman, Hopkins, Klitschko, and JMM at least should all have their ATG tickets punched.
Jesus, if Hopkins doesn't deserve ATG status than I don't know who does. The man has had an incredible career.
Is Pacquiao an ATG? To me he is but I dont think he is or ever has been better then Floyd despite bein gin the same division for a lot of their prime careers? I agree it should be a select few considered ATGs. From this generation I have Floyd, Pac, Wlad, Viatali, Jones Jr, Hopkins but cant think of much others. I certainly dont have Hatton, Cotto, Froch etc despite all being great fighters and future HOFrsQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilkeyjoeIs Pacquiao an ATG? To me he is but I dont think he is or ever has been better then Floyd despite bein gin the same division for a lot of their prime careers? I agree it should be a select few considered ATGs. From this generation I have Floyd, Pac, Wlad, Viatali, Jones Jr, Hopkins but cant think of much others. I certainly dont have Hatton, Cotto, Froch etc despite all being great fighters and future HOFrsQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
I suppose the criteria can be as narrow or as broad as one wants to make it however imo they have to have certain attributes and I'm not sure we can attach all that much to titles in about a 15 title era.
Plenty of all time greats(those that could compete in the top of any era) never got a belt. That was the reasoning for it fragmenting from the NBA. The line up for the title was just to long. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Now of course we have about 10 guys in every division claiming to be some kind of world champion. Same with winning records, scrutiny is needed.
You can find these attributes in one way or another in countless boxing books by both trainers and historians.
INPO
1-Smarts. The ability to think ahead of the action and stay focused under adversity.
2-Speed. To execute ones thoughts.
3-Defense
4-Accuracy. Get the most out of the above
5-Power. Exclamation point but not necessary.
6-Conditioning.
7-A set of Balls
8-Motive and discipline
9-Chin. Not an absolute necessity but desirable.
10-A trainer and good cut man.
=Success
Pacquiao for sure is an ATG.
And if we consider Roy Jones as an active figher, he is also undisputedly an ATG.
Where does Lennox Lewis stand?Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
On his legs because he is a legend.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOedWhere does Lennox Lewis stand?Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
Hey , I have no problem with Hopkins and I think he would be in for the achievement of being a World Champ at his age. He lost to guys like Jermain Taylor so wasn't the no.1 in the division or dominant. No doubt he had some fantastic results as well. As for the Klits, where do you put them in the all time HW's ? Are they above Ali,Frazier,Marciano, Louis, Holmes, Foreman, Tyson (for that period where he put fear in any boxer) and Lewis? If there above any of them, they are ATG's but that is 8 guys in one division alone and I haven't mentioned any HW's pre 50's out of sheer lack of knowledge. Multiply that by the amount of divisions and even though a lot are Multi weight champions , you still start getting to 100 odd people. I wouldn't include any more than that. Marquez? No doubt he's a great champion, but an ATG? Whatever happened in their last fight, Pac had the better of the series. Would he beat Barrera and Morales in their peak? Maybe, I'm not against JMM being an ATG. Somebody else mentioned Roy Jones Jr. For the period where he dominated the MW's he definitely would be in. The reason I never mentioned him is because I don't class him as a current fighter. The Roy Jones of now is NOT the Roy Jones in his prime.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerWhat do you mean by "not for Hopkin's boxing prowess"? Like him or not, he's one of the greatest talents to ever enter the ring with one of the highest boxing IQ's of all time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
Mayweather, Pacman, Hopkins, Klitschko, and JMM at least should all have their ATG tickets punched.
Jesus, if Hopkins doesn't deserve ATG status than I don't know who does. The man has had an incredible career.
I don't class many as ATG, because to me it should be ultra elite. There should only be 50, 100 maximum ever.
Both Klits are ATGs. They were dominant for so long. Hopkins is clearly an ATG. Besides what he did in his later years, he won the IBF Middleweight title in 1995 and defended it until 2005.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraHey , I have no problem with Hopkins and I think he would be in for the achievement of being a World Champ at his age. He lost to guys like Jermain Taylor so wasn't the no.1 in the division or dominant. No doubt he had some fantastic results as well. As for the Klits, where do you put them in the all time HW's ? Are they above Ali,Frazier,Marciano, Louis, Holmes, Foreman, Tyson (for that period where he put fear in any boxer) and Lewis? If there above any of them, they are ATG's but that is 8 guys in one division alone and I haven't mentioned any HW's pre 50's out of sheer lack of knowledge. Multiply that by the amount of divisions and even though a lot are Multi weight champions , you still start getting to 100 odd people. I wouldn't include any more than that. Marquez? No doubt he's a great champion, but an ATG? Whatever happened in their last fight, Pac had the better of the series. Would he beat Barrera and Morales in their peak? Maybe, I'm not against JMM being an ATG. Somebody else mentioned Roy Jones Jr. For the period where he dominated the MW's he definitely would be in. The reason I never mentioned him is because I don't class him as a current fighter. The Roy Jones of now is NOT the Roy Jones in his prime.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerWhat do you mean by "not for Hopkin's boxing prowess"? Like him or not, he's one of the greatest talents to ever enter the ring with one of the highest boxing IQ's of all time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
Mayweather, Pacman, Hopkins, Klitschko, and JMM at least should all have their ATG tickets punched.
Jesus, if Hopkins doesn't deserve ATG status than I don't know who does. The man has had an incredible career.
I don't class many as ATG, because to me it should be ultra elite. There should only be 50, 100 maximum ever.
Tommy Hearns lost to Leonard at light middle and Hagler at middle other ATG. Losing to an ATG doesnt rule out your chance to be an ATG.
Ok, so if both Klits are ATG's , who do they take out of my list? ATG is what it is , so there has to be a cut off point and it has to be elite.Quote:
Originally Posted by SilkeyjoeBoth Klits are ATGs. They were dominant for so long. Hopkins is clearly an ATG. Besides what he did in his later years, he won the IBF Middleweight title in 1995 and defended it until 2005.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraHey , I have no problem with Hopkins and I think he would be in for the achievement of being a World Champ at his age. He lost to guys like Jermain Taylor so wasn't the no.1 in the division or dominant. No doubt he had some fantastic results as well. As for the Klits, where do you put them in the all time HW's ? Are they above Ali,Frazier,Marciano, Louis, Holmes, Foreman, Tyson (for that period where he put fear in any boxer) and Lewis? If there above any of them, they are ATG's but that is 8 guys in one division alone and I haven't mentioned any HW's pre 50's out of sheer lack of knowledge. Multiply that by the amount of divisions and even though a lot are Multi weight champions , you still start getting to 100 odd people. I wouldn't include any more than that. Marquez? No doubt he's a great champion, but an ATG? Whatever happened in their last fight, Pac had the better of the series. Would he beat Barrera and Morales in their peak? Maybe, I'm not against JMM being an ATG. Somebody else mentioned Roy Jones Jr. For the period where he dominated the MW's he definitely would be in. The reason I never mentioned him is because I don't class him as a current fighter. The Roy Jones of now is NOT the Roy Jones in his prime.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerWhat do you mean by "not for Hopkin's boxing prowess"? Like him or not, he's one of the greatest talents to ever enter the ring with one of the highest boxing IQ's of all time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
Mayweather, Pacman, Hopkins, Klitschko, and JMM at least should all have their ATG tickets punched.
Jesus, if Hopkins doesn't deserve ATG status than I don't know who does. The man has had an incredible career.
I don't class many as ATG, because to me it should be ultra elite. There should only be 50, 100 maximum ever.
Tommy Hearns lost to Leonard at light middle and Hagler at middle other ATG. Losing to an ATG doesnt rule out your chance to be an ATG.
I've said from the outset that Hopkins is in. I said "not necessarily for his boxing prowess", meaning that for large periods of his career , he wasn't "the man" in his division , albeit one of them, but he is an ATG.
I totally agree with you example of Hearns and that losing to an ATG doesn't necessarily rule you out, but I do think it is important to beat either ATG's or HOF's.
For the record, I think Hearns, Hagler, Duran and Hearns are all ATG's (as everybody else probably does.) they all did exceptional things at a particular point of their careers in certain divisions . I don't think it has to be for every division you've fought in or for the whole of your career, that's why Roy Jones Jr. is also definitely in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
....you do realize that before he lost to Jermain Taylor (which was a controversial result, btw), he was THE man at MW for about 10 years prior, with 17 or 18 title defenses?
Are we talking about the same guy?
No there is no cut off point it gets bigger and bigger every year. Once you are on the list you do not get removed. You can speculate how they may do against the other ATGs from different generation but in general it should be determined on what they achieved in their generation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraOk, so if both Klits are ATG's , who do they take out of my list? ATG is what it is , so there has to be a cut off point and it has to be elite.Quote:
Originally Posted by SilkeyjoeBoth Klits are ATGs. They were dominant for so long. Hopkins is clearly an ATG. Besides what he did in his later years, he won the IBF Middleweight title in 1995 and defended it until 2005.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraHey , I have no problem with Hopkins and I think he would be in for the achievement of being a World Champ at his age. He lost to guys like Jermain Taylor so wasn't the no.1 in the division or dominant. No doubt he had some fantastic results as well. As for the Klits, where do you put them in the all time HW's ? Are they above Ali,Frazier,Marciano, Louis, Holmes, Foreman, Tyson (for that period where he put fear in any boxer) and Lewis? If there above any of them, they are ATG's but that is 8 guys in one division alone and I haven't mentioned any HW's pre 50's out of sheer lack of knowledge. Multiply that by the amount of divisions and even though a lot are Multi weight champions , you still start getting to 100 odd people. I wouldn't include any more than that. Marquez? No doubt he's a great champion, but an ATG? Whatever happened in their last fight, Pac had the better of the series. Would he beat Barrera and Morales in their peak? Maybe, I'm not against JMM being an ATG. Somebody else mentioned Roy Jones Jr. For the period where he dominated the MW's he definitely would be in. The reason I never mentioned him is because I don't class him as a current fighter. The Roy Jones of now is NOT the Roy Jones in his prime.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerWhat do you mean by "not for Hopkin's boxing prowess"? Like him or not, he's one of the greatest talents to ever enter the ring with one of the highest boxing IQ's of all time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
Mayweather, Pacman, Hopkins, Klitschko, and JMM at least should all have their ATG tickets punched.
Jesus, if Hopkins doesn't deserve ATG status than I don't know who does. The man has had an incredible career.
I don't class many as ATG, because to me it should be ultra elite. There should only be 50, 100 maximum ever.
Tommy Hearns lost to Leonard at light middle and Hagler at middle other ATG. Losing to an ATG doesnt rule out your chance to be an ATG.
I've said from the outset that Hopkins is in. I said "not necessarily for his boxing prowess", meaning that for large periods of his career , he wasn't "the man" in his division , albeit one of them, but he is an ATG.
I totally agree with you example of Hearns and that losing to an ATG doesn't necessarily rule you out, but I do think it is important to beat either ATG's or HOF's.
For the record, I think Hearns, Hagler, Duran and Hearns are all ATG's (as everybody else probably does.) they all did exceptional things at a particular point of their careers in certain divisions . I don't think it has to be for every division you've fought in or for the whole of your career, that's why Roy Jones Jr. is also definitely in.
Well , it's all about opinions, but as far as I'm concerned as long as you keep adding to it , they'll be THOUSANDS of ATG's and that just dilutes the word "Great."Quote:
Originally Posted by SilkeyjoeNo there is no cut off point it gets bigger and bigger every year. Once you are on the list you do not get removed. You can speculate how they may do against the other ATGs from different generation but in general it should be determined on what they achieved in their generation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraOk, so if both Klits are ATG's , who do they take out of my list? ATG is what it is , so there has to be a cut off point and it has to be elite.Quote:
Originally Posted by SilkeyjoeBoth Klits are ATGs. They were dominant for so long. Hopkins is clearly an ATG. Besides what he did in his later years, he won the IBF Middleweight title in 1995 and defended it until 2005.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraHey , I have no problem with Hopkins and I think he would be in for the achievement of being a World Champ at his age. He lost to guys like Jermain Taylor so wasn't the no.1 in the division or dominant. No doubt he had some fantastic results as well. As for the Klits, where do you put them in the all time HW's ? Are they above Ali,Frazier,Marciano, Louis, Holmes, Foreman, Tyson (for that period where he put fear in any boxer) and Lewis? If there above any of them, they are ATG's but that is 8 guys in one division alone and I haven't mentioned any HW's pre 50's out of sheer lack of knowledge. Multiply that by the amount of divisions and even though a lot are Multi weight champions , you still start getting to 100 odd people. I wouldn't include any more than that. Marquez? No doubt he's a great champion, but an ATG? Whatever happened in their last fight, Pac had the better of the series. Would he beat Barrera and Morales in their peak? Maybe, I'm not against JMM being an ATG. Somebody else mentioned Roy Jones Jr. For the period where he dominated the MW's he definitely would be in. The reason I never mentioned him is because I don't class him as a current fighter. The Roy Jones of now is NOT the Roy Jones in his prime.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerWhat do you mean by "not for Hopkin's boxing prowess"? Like him or not, he's one of the greatest talents to ever enter the ring with one of the highest boxing IQ's of all time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
Mayweather, Pacman, Hopkins, Klitschko, and JMM at least should all have their ATG tickets punched.
Jesus, if Hopkins doesn't deserve ATG status than I don't know who does. The man has had an incredible career.
I don't class many as ATG, because to me it should be ultra elite. There should only be 50, 100 maximum ever.
Tommy Hearns lost to Leonard at light middle and Hagler at middle other ATG. Losing to an ATG doesnt rule out your chance to be an ATG.
I've said from the outset that Hopkins is in. I said "not necessarily for his boxing prowess", meaning that for large periods of his career , he wasn't "the man" in his division , albeit one of them, but he is an ATG.
I totally agree with you example of Hearns and that losing to an ATG doesn't necessarily rule you out, but I do think it is important to beat either ATG's or HOF's.
For the record, I think Hearns, Hagler, Duran and Hearns are all ATG's (as everybody else probably does.) they all did exceptional things at a particular point of their careers in certain divisions . I don't think it has to be for every division you've fought in or for the whole of your career, that's why Roy Jones Jr. is also definitely in.
What is great to one person in one generation, is not so great to another person in another generation. We are talking about "THE GREATS OF ALL TIME," not the really good!
if Ali for example is "the Greatest", does that mean he will ALWAYS be the Greatest? What if a great looking fast talking super stylish, super popular HW comes along and becomes champion at 18 , retires when he's 40 and has a record of 100-0 with 100 Knockouts , is there not a chance that he may become the Greatest?
The greatest was given to Ali by Ali. If course the greatest can change as new come along.
Ali is a poor example as he is the one who continually called himself The Greatest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraWell , it's all about opinions, but as far as I'm concerned as long as you keep adding to it , they'll be THOUSANDS of ATG's and that just dilutes the word "Great."Quote:
Originally Posted by SilkeyjoeNo there is no cut off point it gets bigger and bigger every year. Once you are on the list you do not get removed. You can speculate how they may do against the other ATGs from different generation but in general it should be determined on what they achieved in their generation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraOk, so if both Klits are ATG's , who do they take out of my list? ATG is what it is , so there has to be a cut off point and it has to be elite.Quote:
Originally Posted by SilkeyjoeBoth Klits are ATGs. They were dominant for so long. Hopkins is clearly an ATG. Besides what he did in his later years, he won the IBF Middleweight title in 1995 and defended it until 2005.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraHey , I have no problem with Hopkins and I think he would be in for the achievement of being a World Champ at his age. He lost to guys like Jermain Taylor so wasn't the no.1 in the division or dominant. No doubt he had some fantastic results as well. As for the Klits, where do you put them in the all time HW's ? Are they above Ali,Frazier,Marciano, Louis, Holmes, Foreman, Tyson (for that period where he put fear in any boxer) and Lewis? If there above any of them, they are ATG's but that is 8 guys in one division alone and I haven't mentioned any HW's pre 50's out of sheer lack of knowledge. Multiply that by the amount of divisions and even though a lot are Multi weight champions , you still start getting to 100 odd people. I wouldn't include any more than that. Marquez? No doubt he's a great champion, but an ATG? Whatever happened in their last fight, Pac had the better of the series. Would he beat Barrera and Morales in their peak? Maybe, I'm not against JMM being an ATG. Somebody else mentioned Roy Jones Jr. For the period where he dominated the MW's he definitely would be in. The reason I never mentioned him is because I don't class him as a current fighter. The Roy Jones of now is NOT the Roy Jones in his prime.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerWhat do you mean by "not for Hopkin's boxing prowess"? Like him or not, he's one of the greatest talents to ever enter the ring with one of the highest boxing IQ's of all time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
Mayweather, Pacman, Hopkins, Klitschko, and JMM at least should all have their ATG tickets punched.
Jesus, if Hopkins doesn't deserve ATG status than I don't know who does. The man has had an incredible career.
I don't class many as ATG, because to me it should be ultra elite. There should only be 50, 100 maximum ever.
Tommy Hearns lost to Leonard at light middle and Hagler at middle other ATG. Losing to an ATG doesnt rule out your chance to be an ATG.
I've said from the outset that Hopkins is in. I said "not necessarily for his boxing prowess", meaning that for large periods of his career , he wasn't "the man" in his division , albeit one of them, but he is an ATG.
I totally agree with you example of Hearns and that losing to an ATG doesn't necessarily rule you out, but I do think it is important to beat either ATG's or HOF's.
For the record, I think Hearns, Hagler, Duran and Hearns are all ATG's (as everybody else probably does.) they all did exceptional things at a particular point of their careers in certain divisions . I don't think it has to be for every division you've fought in or for the whole of your career, that's why Roy Jones Jr. is also definitely in.
What is great to one person in one generation, is not so great to another person in another generation. We are talking about "THE GREATS OF ALL TIME," not the really good!
if Ali for example is "the Greatest", does that mean he will ALWAYS be the Greatest? What if a great looking fast talking super stylish, super popular HW comes along and becomes champion at 18 , retires when he's 40 and has a record of 100-0 with 100 Knockouts , is there not a chance that he may become the Greatest?
Once you are an ATG you are always an ATG. You earned that title for a certain era.
I'm sorry, you are just going to have to try to remember all those names. LOL
I don't think you can call Mike Tyson an ATG either, but if there was an award for bringing pure excitement and revitalizing boxing interest, Mike Tyson would have to be at the top. The man was fun to watch!!Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
I don't see why Tyson isn't an ATG. Youngest ever HW champion, routinely shows up on top 10 HW of all time lists.
Ali also proved he was the greatest heavyweight ever, looks the the great fighters he beat, the events he was involved in boxing, the heart and determination he showed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silkeyjoe
Although he always was on my list, I'm quite happy to bow to your greater knowledge on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
....you do realize that before he lost to Jermain Taylor (which was a controversial result, btw), he was THE man at MW for about 10 years prior, with 17 or 18 title defenses?
Are we talking about the same guy?
I have to disagree with the Klit brothers being ATG. Vitali was good but did not have the longevity because of injury and he was very cumbersome. A quality fighter like Lennox showed me the difference between a graet fighter and a good fighter.
Wlad has longevity now after a shaky start which makes me not rate him because deep down if a decent fighter came like Tyson, Lennox or Holmes I feel he would wilt and lose in dramatic fashion.
I was thinking the same thing. Hop was the man at middle from around 1998/99 (maybe even as early as 1994 when Roy moved up and G-Man moved up) until 2005 when he was ripped off vs. Taylor. After that, he spent the rest of his time at 175 and as lineal champ was considered "the man" at that weight 3 separate times. Guys just hate Hop because he transitioned to a more cerebral fighter from a seek and destroy guy. I can see a case for Hop, Floyd, or Manny to be considered greatest fighter of their generation. Everyone else is easily a level below and out of the discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
....you do realize that before he lost to Jermain Taylor (which was a controversial result, btw), he was THE man at MW for about 10 years prior, with 17 or 18 title defenses?
Are we talking about the same guy?
I think there is a difference in level between a hall of famer and all time great. For example I would have a fighter like Carl Froch down as hall of famer's but not an all time great due to him not being top dog in his weight division in this era. On the flip side I wouldn't consider Andre Ward an all time great because he hasn't had an interesting challenge or been in huge fights.